They may tend to give fairly conservative feedback rather than risk straining relationships with colleagues by saying things that could be perceived negatively. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that peers will eagerly step into the breach. In flatter organizations with looser hierarchies, bosses may no longer have all the information they need to appraise subordinates. Peer appraisal begins with a simple premise: the people best suited to judge the performance of others are those who work most closely with them. Fortunately, managers can, with some forward thinking and a deeper understanding of their dynamics, ease the discomfort. The novelty and ambiguity of peer appraisal, on the other hand, give rise to its paradoxes. But a certain clarity exists in the traditional form of performance review, when a boss evaluates a subordinate. Performance management isn’t easy under any circumstances. The Paradox of Rewards: When peer appraisal counts the most, it helps the least.The Measurement Paradox: The easier feedback is to gather, the harder it is to apply. The Paradox of Group Performance: Focusing on individuals puts the entire group at risk.The Paradox of Roles: You cannot be both a peer and a judge.Four inescapable paradoxes are embedded in the process: My research produced a discomforting conclusion: peer appraisal is difficult because it has to be. Under what circumstances does peer appraisal improve performance? Why does peer appraisal work well in some cases and fail miserably in others? And finally, how can executives fashion peer appraisal programs to be less anxiety provoking and more productive for the organization? I was looking for answers to several questions. Most recently, I studied its implementation at 17 companies varying in size-from startups of a few dozen people to Fortune 500 firms-and industry-from high-tech manufacturing to professional services firms. Yet the question remains: can peer appraisal take place without negative side effects? The answer is yes-if executives understand and manage around four inherent paradoxes.įor the past ten years, my research has focused on the theory behind, and practice of, 360-degree feedback. Peer appraisal, when conducted effectively, can bolster the overall impact of 360-degree feedback and is as important as feedback from superiors and subordinates. No wonder so many executives wonder if peer appraisal is worth the effort. More times than not, it exacerbates bureaucracy, heightens political tensions, and consumes enormous numbers of hours. But one aspect of 360-degree feedback consistently stymies executives: peer appraisal. Indeed, many businesspeople would argue that over the past decade, it has revolutionized performance management-for the better. In and of itself, this type of appraisal isn’t bad. If a single e-mail can send the pulse racing, it’s the one from human resources announcing that it’s time for another round of 360-degree feedback.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |